Dimensions in Elderly Mobility Behaviour as a Basis for Target Group Specific

Mobility Services

Sonja Haustein ILS – Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung GmbHRuhr-Universität Bochum (RUB)

Marcel HuneckeRUB, Germany

Herbert Kemming ILS, Germany

2 / 19

Outline

Background

Segmentation approach

Description of the segments of the elderly

Target group specific measures

Conclusions

3 / 19

Background

populations of western world are aging by 2030 almost every third European will be 60 years or

older (United Nations, 2007)

affects almost every aspect of our lives incl. transport sector

today mobility rates and car use of the elderly are smaller than the ones of younger individuals

but mobility rates and private car use of older people

expected to increase due to lifestyle changes and growing car availability

decreasing number of captive riders of public transport negative environmental and safety implications

e.g. Rosenbloom (2001). Sustainability and automobility among the elderly: an international assessment. Transportation, 28(4), 375-408.

4 / 19

Consequences

measures required that offer more environmentally-friendly alternatives to the private car, still meeting mobility and accessibility needs

mobility needs and requirements of the elderly have been research in the last years (e.g. EU projects MOBILATE, SIZE)

but most results refer to the whole group of the elderly

however seniors are a heterogeneous group with differentiating

life styles, needs and requirements1

need for a more differentiated approach

1BASt & DVR (2000). More road safety for senior citizens. European Conference, 2-4 May, 2000, Cologne. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

Segmentation approaches of the elderlyKäser, 2004 Hildebrandt, 2003 Kirchmair, 2005 Jansen et al.,

2001

Segmen-tation according to:

variety andfrequency of activities

socio-demographic and household variables (e.g. age, driving license)

life-style variables (e.g. consumer behaviour, leisure time activities)

life-style variables (leisure time activities, TV programme, furnishing)

Groups / Types

Group I (17,7%): low variety and frequencyGroup II (50,0%): medium variety, small-high frequencyGroup III (30,5%): high variety, medium-high frequencyGroup IV (0,5%): low variety, high frequency

Workers (11%)Mobile widows (29%)Granny flats (4%)Mobility impaired (12%)Affluent males (39%)Disabled drivers (5%)

Demanding consumption-oriented (22%)Conservative wollowers (15%)Expense-oriented innovators (11%)Economical solitaries (11%)Risk-avers traditionals (19%)Sensation-seeking Actives (22%)

Indifferent Type (34%)Sensation-seeking Type (19%)Intellectual Type (18%)Refusing Type (15%)Calm life style type (14%)

5 / 19

6 / 19

Evaluation of different approaches

different kind of segmentation approaches have specific pros and cons and are relevant for different fields of application1

not applied for the group of seniors until now: segmentation approach that regards mobility-related attitudes

advantages1:

higher relation to mobility behaviour than life styles and socio-demographic types

offer better starting points for interventions than behaviour based and socio-demographic approaches

1Hunecke, Haustein, Böhler, & Grischkat (in press). An attitude based target group approach to reduce the ecological impact of daily mobility behavior. Environment & Behavior.

7 / 19

Data base1

standardised interviews 557 individuals (51% m., 49% f.) aged 60-80 three district types in three big

German cities: city-centre, city border, suburban district

face-to-face interviews (~one hour) content

mobility behaviourto explain mobility behaviour: mobility-related attitudes, norms socio-demographic data infrastructural data

1Sub-sample of data form research project MOBILANZ supported by Federal Ministry of Education and Research (cf. Hunecke, Haustein, Grischkat, & Böhler, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 277-292.

8 / 19

1. step:factor analysis to develop reliable scales

2. step:regression analyses to identify the most important determinants

of mobility behaviour of the elderly

3. step:cluster analyses to identify segments of elderly based on the most relevant

determinants of mobility behaviour

Segmentation process

9 / 19

Scale (number of items)

Description α1

Car orientation (7 Items)

Symbolic-affective evaluation of the car / driving (autonomy, excitement, privacy): „Driving a car means freedom to me.“

.80

Bicycle orientation (4)

Symbolic-affective evaluation of the bicycle / cycling (autonomy, excitement): “By bike I can get anywhere.”

.77

Public transport control (5)

Evaluation of the ability to use public transportation: “Using public transportation instead of the private car is easy for me if I want to.”

.80

Public transport excitement (2)

Evaluation of public transport in terms of excitement and recreation: “For me using public transportation is relaxing.”

.58

Ecological norm (4)

Moral obligation (personal norm) and social pressure (social norm) to use environmentally friendly modes of transport: “For environmental reasons I feel obliged to leave the car unused in everyday life as often as possible.”

.67

Weather resistance (2)Willingness to use the bicycle in bad weather conditions: “I don’t like riding my bike when the weather is chilly.” (reversed)

.70

Perceived mobility needs (2)

People's perceptions of mobility-related consequences of their personal living circumstances: “I have to be mobile all the time to meet my obligations.”

.84

Psychological scales

1Conbach’s α

First step: Development of reliable scales

Regression analyses (2 out of 5)

10 / 19

Predictors Distance travelled Percentage trips by car

City centre -.09*

Driving license .13* .11*

Number of cars .14* .23***

Age -.18***

Partner in household .10*

Partner in different household (LAT)

.12*

Employed .13*

Ecological norm -.12*

Public transport control -.32***

Weather resistance -.18***

Perceives mobility needs .16* .12**

R2 .21 .50

Second step: Identification of relevant determinants of mobility behaviour

Regression analyses (2 out of 5)

11 / 19

Predictors Distance travelled Percentage trips by car

City centre -.09*

Driving license .13* .11*

Number of cars .14* .23***

Age -.18***

Partner in household .10*

Partner in different household (living apart together)

.12*

Employed .13*

Ecological norm -.12*

Public transport control -.32***

Weather resistance -.18***

Perceives mobility needs .16* .12**

R2 .21 .50

Second step: Identification of relevant determinants of mobility behaviour

Cluster centres

12 / 19

Third step: Identification of segments of the elderly

13 / 19

Segments‘ distribution

Modal Split

14 / 19

Distance travelled and leisure time activities

15 / 19

16 / 19

Overview of segments‘ characteristics

17 / 19

Target group specific measures

Conclusions Mobility management for the elderly has to recognise the heterogeneous requirements

and attitudes of this group. The presented approach defines relevant subgroups, which can serve as target groups

for specific measures. Segments’ mobility behaviour cannot be explained by socio-demographic and

infrastructural differences alone but also requires the consideration of mobility-related attitudes.

Car availability is not necessarily required for a high amount of leisure time mobility if access to PT is available:

three segments with the highest amount of leisure time activities show above average shares of eco-friendly modes (foot, bike, or public transport); none of them uses the car above-average

good public transport service can help to enhance mobility of older people and contribute to a high quality of life

18 / 19

Thanks for your attention!

Sonja Haustein

ILS – Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung GmbH

sonja.haustein@ils.nrw.de

http://www.ils.nrw.de/

Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Workgroup for Environmental and Cognitive Psychology

sonja.haustein@rub.de

http://eco.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/